IME anything under about $1200 (new) in a FS bike is just about worthless off-road.

Used is a different story.

If you're interested, a buddy of mine has an S-Works FS 29er he's thinking of selling. Large frame. 2x10.

M

I'm not sure what size frame would fit me. I'm 6'-0" tall with a 32" inseam, if that tells you anything.

__________________Dizave opined: Why do you care where the premises come from? They are above reproach. For all intents and purposes, you can just make up all your premises, since they can't be proven anyway. That's why we need premises.

If you're interested, a buddy of mine has an S-Works FS 29er he's thinking of selling. Large frame. 2x10.

M

Any idea what he wants for it?

__________________Dizave opined: Why do you care where the premises come from? They are above reproach. For all intents and purposes, you can just make up all your premises, since they can't be proven anyway. That's why we need premises.

I think I'd better hold off on that until I do some offroading and decide whether it's really for me. I've still got an old Motobecane 600DS that I could try out. All I need to do is swap out the street tires for a set of knobbies.

__________________Dizave opined: Why do you care where the premises come from? They are above reproach. For all intents and purposes, you can just make up all your premises, since they can't be proven anyway. That's why we need premises.

I'm not an expert but I suspect it has to do with a shorter drivetrain and a design that allows for much better climbing.

On mine, the design isn't built to pull hard on the handlebars:

The fastest guys on these almost lift their butts out of the seat using their legs and backs to generate the power.

but on the Cruzbike, the handlebar is pretty much straight-lined to the crankset:

I love riding again - I have a bad neck which put me out of cycling since 1994. I made an effort with the Fargo last year. It was a good and hard effort but after 30 miles, I was done.

Since I had committed to Ragbrai, it was either a recumbent or give up cycling for good. To me, it'll never be a recumbent v DF argument either - ride what you want and have fun!

There's pros and cons to each design which really has nothing to do with the health of a rider either. You can see from the times above, you can be extremely fast and comfortable on a recumbent, healthy neck/back or not. I also have no doubt that a fast recumbent rider would likely be fast and competitive on a DF - just not as comfortable.

I see the "fitted" bike argument all the time also! My Mercian fit me like a glove yet after a double-century decades ago, I still hurt much, much worse than after a longish ride on the recumbent. I do a few larger rides here - when we stop, the DF riders are stretching, rubbing their asses and picking at their laundry. I only get off the bike if I'm hitting the head or grabbing a bike to eat!

Downhill, I have a huge advantage on most riders. Flat - I have a slight advantage on most riders. Uphills, I'm slow but I'm slowly getting to the point where I can catch others on the next downhill. They aren't getting that far away from me. I stay away from organized pacelines - They're carrying a little faster pace than I generally want to carry, I don't want to mess them up and I know I'm not always welcomed. That's cool - doesn't bother me.

Where am I now? I can do a century easy. 200-km brevets are a breeze. 300-km are longer - I've only done one but I had a lot left after that particular one. Next up is a 400-km event and then a 600-km one in April.

It's hard for me not to express how much I love cycling again.I can do the long miles and be somewhat comfortable - as comfortable as one can be exerting a physical effort for 8-10-15-20-30+ hours in a row!

If I had a good neck, would I be where I am today? Maybe, maybe not. It's hard for me - and I suspect a lot of people - to imagine riding a regular bike for that many hours. Clearly, a lot of people are successful at it...I just don't think I'd be one of them. Comfort for me allowed me to morph into long distance riding - without this level of comfort, I don't think I would have developed in this particular direction.

Here's a history of recumbents if you're interested - linky. From that site, does this look somewhat similar to one of the bikes above?!

I wonder why these didn't become more commonplace over the years. I've been bicycling since the early 70's, and I never saw a recumbent until last year, when I started riding on the local bike trails. I don't see them for sale in the bike shops in this area either.

From a bio-mechanical standpoint, you'd be using a lot more quadriceps on each stroke than you would on a regular road bicycle. Based on my weight lifting experience, the posture shown above should allow you to put a lot more power into each stroke, providing you can prevent your torso from sliding up the backrest. If it could be fitted with shoulder straps to hold the pilot in place, I would think it would be extremely fast in a sprint race.

__________________Dizave opined: Why do you care where the premises come from? They are above reproach. For all intents and purposes, you can just make up all your premises, since they can't be proven anyway. That's why we need premises.

I wonder why these didn't become more commonplace over the years. I've been bicycling since the early 70's, and I never saw a recumbent until last year, when I started riding on the local bike trails. I don't see them for sale in the bike shops in this area either.

From a bio-mechanical standpoint, you'd be using a lot more quadriceps on each stroke than you would on a regular road bicycle. Based on my weight lifting experience, the posture shown above should allow you to put a lot more power into each stroke, providing you can prevent your torso from sliding up the backrest. If it could be fitted with shoulder straps to hold the pilot in place, I would think it would be extremely fast in a sprint race.

Thanks Aurelius - take a look at the history link. I think that'll explain a few things that will make it very clear i.e. they were banned from racing by the UCI. Having said that, I have no idea if it's 100% accurate but it certainly makes sense!

Great insight on the bio-mechanical viewpoint. I appreciate your insights. I can tell you this: the first time I rode mine up a short hill, I thought I had made a huge fucking mistake. Slow doesn't begin to describe my speed. Having done a little research on the internet, I knew I had to develop what is typically called the "recumbent muscles" and now, I assume that's the quads. Sliding up the seats hasn't been reported as a problem. The wattage that some of these guys are measuring are impressive.

I got a FS aluminum Santa Cruz. Already have a hardtail and prefer the FS for trail riding. The FS weighs about 30lbs but that isn't an issue when riding. Most trails have gnarly palmetto roots and rocks. I like the cush ride of the FS. No issues when climbing either.
It came with 2.5 width tires and thus far no problems. I got the FS figuring better to have it and not need all 6" of travel. I have not regretted my purchase.

Aurelius; I also just bought a FS 6" bike and do not regret my purchase in the least. I bought a 2012 Giant Reign 2 for $2,065+ tx OTD, due to there not being any leftover XL sized bikes from anyone!

In short, I freaking LOVE this bike. Until this past Fall, I was a die hard rigid/HT guy having grown up on BMX bikes. The first two rides on this thing, it felt a little heavy, a little squishy compared to my HT. After dialing in the suspension like a noob, my bike shop was able to give me some great pointers (along with some member here) and the bike felt 100% better. It's just about perfect right now. I've added tall, wide bars, platform pedals, a new seat and a bash guard. I can say it's easily the most fun bike I've ever ridden. Would I win races with it? Probably not. But for $2k, I think it was money very well spent. I would definitely reccomend FS, but test ride first.

Great insight on the bio-mechanical viewpoint. I appreciate your insights. I can tell you this: the first time I rode mine up a short hill, I thought I had made a huge fucking mistake. Slow doesn't begin to describe my speed. Having done a little research on the internet, I knew I had to develop what is typically called the "recumbent muscles" and now, I assume that's the quads. Sliding up the seats hasn't been reported as a problem. The wattage that some of these guys are measuring are impressive.

I have a book on kinesiology that was one of my favorite reference sources when I was weight lifting. It not only identifies what each muscle does in a particular movement, but also how much power it contributes in each phase of the lift, which varies greatly. In the squat, for instance, the glutes provide most of the lifting power in the lowest position, which then shifts to the hamstrings, and finally to the quadriceps when you're almost fully erect. I've noticed that on a conventional road bike, I'm using primarily my glutes and hamstrings to propel the bike forward, especially when my hands are in the lowest position on the handlebars. This essentially takes the powerful quadriceps muscles out of the game until very late in the pedal downstroke. Riders may not notice this, because while pedaling at 80-100 rpm, you really aren't pressing very hard on each pedal, but the loss of mechanical efficiency would be instantly apparent while performing a squat or doing leg presses. I'd love to try climbing a hill on a recumbent to see what the differences are. My guess is that although I should in theory be able to generate a lot more power when pedaling at that angle, it would also burn up a lot more glycogen in a shorter time. Finding the ideal ratio would be the trick.

__________________Dizave opined: Why do you care where the premises come from? They are above reproach. For all intents and purposes, you can just make up all your premises, since they can't be proven anyway. That's why we need premises.